Tuesday, November 27, 2007

It's time to turn back years of bad policy and realize the pedestrian potential of all of our city streets, including Boylston Street.

So said, Alderman Vicki Danberg last night in what was the highlight of an otherwise mixed meeting of the Zoning and Planning committee.

During discussions of a provision of the proposed Planned Multi-Use Business Development amendment that will discourage, if not prohibit, degradation of the pedestrian environment, some aldermen — generally and with regard to Boylston Street in particular — suggested that there are some roads in Newton that are not just not appropriate for pedestrian travel. Alderman Danberg (and others) flat rejected the notion that some roads are simply not pedestrian corridors.

Alderman Danberg said, in effect, that the only reason such roads are not pedestrian-friendly is decades of bad policy, that how roads such as Boylston Street get designed and used is completely up to us to decide, and that we should take every opportunity, no matter how small, to realize a vision of human scale and pedestrian connectivity. (I didn't get Alderman Danberg's words verbatim; I am not doing them justice by my summary.)

It was a deeply heartening moment. More importantly, it was yet another sign that the tide is turning.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

There's another way to fairly spread the cost of driving to all drivers: raising the gas tax.

Andreae is absolutely right. We need to raise the gas tax, to allocate more of the cost of driving to drivers, reducing the driving subsidy.

But, a higher gas tax alone is not enough. We also need tolls and other specific charges (congestion pricing, market-rate meters, &c.) to supplement the gas tax and impose a premium on the least desirable kinds of driving.

In this Globe story about Alan LeBovidge, Deval Patrick's pick to be executive directory of the Turnpike Authority, Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen is once again cited for the proposition that more gambling is necessary to prevent motorists for paying their own way:

Cohen has said he will come back with larger toll hikes next year if legislators do not act on Patrick's plans to reorganize the transportation bureaucracy and approve gambling, two steps he believes will raise enough money to forestall more toll increases.

There's another alternative: rather than raise tolls, spread them. Tap north/south traffic on 93 to help pay the Big Dig debt and provide a regular revenue stream for annual maintenance.

The brave* defenders of the draft language worked hard to resist change that would undermine the policy statement and to craft language that would satisfy Alderman Baker's expressed concern about exceptions.

For example, the draft language included a strong statement about the detrimental consequence of roadway widening:

Increasing roadway capacity would only encourage more people to drive, which would in turn create more traffic jams on existing roadways and choke points.

Alderman Baker suggested removing that strong statement and adding "general" to "A strategy of 'roadway widening avoidance' will not result ..."

With those two changes a strong policy stand against the evils of roadway widening became significantly weaker.

While the aldermen were willing to allow for the possibility that roadway widening might be useful in some rare instances, Alderman Danberg was not going to support any change unless it was clear that roadway widening was to be considered "only as a last resort." So, the final language will allow for Alderman Baker's exceptional cases, but not at the expense of a strong statement of vision.

And, so it went throughout the long, but very productive consideration of Alderman Baker's suggested edits.

A note about Alderman Baker's participation. The sweep of his proposed edits suggest an agenda broader than the ostensible need to allow for exceptions that he articulated. But, he was a very reasonable participant in the discussion and seemed satisfied with the significantly less radical changes that resulted. There are at least three explanations:

His true purpose was only to account for possible exceptions and his proposed changes were inadvertently too broad.

At the meeting he quickly recognized significant opposition to his changes and took what he could get

Alderman Baker reads NS&S and was convinced by the wisdom of my arguments

I'm willing to give Alderman Baker the benefit of the doubt that it was reason number 1, but note that he has an out-dated view of traffic, pedestrians, and bikers, especially when compared to his colleagues.

*While some ZAP alderman may love some people who walk and bike, this headline is only a rhetorical flourish. Their public action only indicates that they consider pedestrians and bikers important for public policy reasons, not that they actually love them. But that takes more space than the headline allows. Likewise, it wasn't really a battle it was a reasoned discussion and the alderman cited above did not actually "fight back," they spoke camly and collegially. They weren't really "brave" in that they were never really in danger.

Note that there is no asterisk next to "evils" in "evils of roadway widening." Roadway widening is evil.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Motorists drive closer to bikers who wear helmets. That's the finding of a "plucky psychologist at the University of Bath" who hooked up sensors to his bike and found that cars and trucks came closer when he was wearing his helmet than when he wasn't.

It is a troubling story. But, I don't think it's a reason not to wear a helmet. It's not my understanding that cars overtaking bikers are a particular safety problem (though Ian Walker, the plucky psychologist, did get clipped twice). I'm going to keep wearing my lid because I'm worried about the more likelier incidents where wearing a helmet will help.

There is a lesson here: to get motorists to give you a wide berth and to protect yourself from head injury, camouflage your helmet with a long-haired wig.

Regarding the first bullet, Alderman Baker wants to cut two words that will change the standard from positive transportation effects from new development to a positive overall effect from the project. That we want — and will insist on — an overall positive effect of a project is a given. The point of the provision in question is to require a positive transporation effect in addition.

There ought to be a bumper sticker: Road widening is for car lovers! More road, more lanes = more traffic. Count on it. It's called induced demand. We have enough roadway capacity in Newton.

Alderman Baker claims that "roadway widening may be of some value in specific contexts to relieve congestion". I'd like to see some examples. As for me, I think this sentence he'd like to cut from the Comprehensive Plan states the issue better:

A strategy of "roadway widening avoidance" will not result in substantive changes in the amount of growth that Newton can accommodate, but it will have an impact on the form that future growth takes by directing development towards areas where it will have the best access to transit while having the least impact on traffic.

The third bullet refers to three transportation standards that the draft plan proposes to impose on developers. Alderman Baker doesn't alter the substance of the standards, he just kicks implementation down the road by changing "requiring" to "consider requiring." You'd think that after years of work on the Comprehensive Plan, the city (including Alderman Baker) had considered it.

As part of a deal before the full board vote on the draft Comprehensive Plan, the plan and Alderman Baker's suggested changes were sent back to committee (as was the Planned Multi-Use Business Development amendment to the zoning ordinance).

So what does Alderman Baker want to do to pedestrians and bicyclists? Here are some of the things that Alderman Baker wants removed from the draft Comprehensive Plan:

A recommendation that roadway modifications not degrade pedestrian and bicycle accommodations (page 4-18(G))

A recommendation that pedestrian and bicycle accommodations improve as much as roadways improve (page 4-18(G))

Reference to design principles that streets should be designed to accommodate bicycles (page 4-12)

Reference to design principles that there be pedestrian access to every location (page 4-12)

Driving is an enormously subsidized activity that has all sorts of negative impacts on a community. We need to raise the cost of driving to both discourage driving and also to raise revenue that can be used to offset the negative impacts. A stiff gas tax would generally work to discourage driving, but it isn't an ideal mechanism to raise revenue to address those places most affected by traffic.

We should discriminate among different drivers, and the Newton Charge will.

There are, generally speaking, four kinds of traffic in Newton:

Wholly intra-Newton trips, those that begin and end in Newton—my house to City Hall and back

Trips by Newtonians that begin or end outside of Newton—My house to my friend's house in Brookline

Trips by non-Newtonians that end or start in Newton—The couple from Needham driving to Johnny's for Sunday brunch

Trips by non-Newtonians that start and end outside of Newton—the professional from Wellesley using Boylston Street to get to her job in Boston

The Newton Charge will only apply to the last set of trips, those that use Newton roads to pass from one town to another.

While there are subsets of the first three types of trip that might be worth discouraging—like unnecessarily driving kids to school—these are not generally trips that are problematic. Categories one and two involve Newton residents. They are entitled to use the roads they pay for. Category three involves non-Newton residents who are engaged with Newton. They are working, playing, worshiping, or spending in Newton. Those are not activities that we want to discourage.

But, why give the same access to our roads to people who are not either Newtonians or engaged in Newton? Why allow free travel through our city? Why allow pass-through drivers to add to the already too big traffic problem in our fair city? Among other things, the category four drivers compete with Newtonians or those engaged with Newton for limited capacity.

Look at this through the lens of the proposed development at Chestnut Hill Square. The developer expects the development will add 11,000 daily car trips to Boylston Street, all of which would fall into categories one through three. That many trips added to existing capacity is going to break the system. But, what if we were able to take some of the load out of the system by discouraging the category four drivers from driving through Newton and taking public transportation instead? We'd have more capacity available for trips by Chestnut Hill Square residents or for trips by Chestnut Hill Square shoppers, either of which is preferable to pass-through trips.

In future posts, the technical feasibility of the Newton Charge, its relationship to transit, and its regional impact.

Friday, November 2, 2007

I live on a cut-through. People cut down my street to avoid traffic on Boylston Street.

Boylston Street itself is a cut-through. A large number of people drive the length of Boylston from the Wellesley line to Brookline without stopping. These people add nothing to the Newton economy but traffic, congestion, pollution, noise, heartache, &c.

My solution (to the latter problem) is the Newton Charge (a name I almost surely will change). The Newton Charge is a fluctuating fee to be paid by any motorist who enters Newton and exits within a period that reasonably precludes the possibility of having stopped to dine at one of our restaurants, to visit one of our residents, to enjoy one of our parks, or to patronize any of our commercial establishments.

You drive through without stopping, you pay a small fee to offset the costs of your driving.

At this point, I'm thinking that the city border will be divided into 6 or 7 gates. As you drive on a road that passes through the gate (Boylston Street at the Wellesley line, Galen Street at the Watertown line, Commonwealth Avenue at the Weston line, &c.) you'd pass by FastLane and license plate readers. (This is already standard technology in use in London, Stockholm, and anywhere else where there is congestion pricing.)

The system would note your entry through the gate. The system would note your exit through another gate. If you come into one gate and out another gate within a certain amount of time, you'd be considered a passer-through and be charged. If you go in through one gate and back out the same gate, you would not be considered a passer-through. If you go in one gate and out another gate, but the time between is long enough, you will be considered to have stopped in Newton and will not be charged.

The price would depend on both your entry and exit gate and the time of day. More for longer trips during peak times. Less for shorter trips at night.

If you come into Newton on Needham Street and fifteen minutes later enter Boston on Beacon Street, you didn't stop at Sweet Tomatoes for a slice along the way. We'll charge you $.50 during evening and morning rush hours and $.25 at other times.

Traffic on the 'Pike would be exempt, but we will consider that you have passed through a gate if you get on or off. So, no cutting through Newton to avoid the tolls.

Split the revenue three ways:

To Newton for road maintenance and to finance traffic calming

To the Commonwealth for road maintenance on state-maintained roads

To the MBTA to finance improvements to public transit

More on this idea and how it relates to Chestnut Hill Square in another post.